Just visiting the middle class©

A few folks, mostly Liberals, referred me to Justin Trudeau’s response to yesterday’s federal budget. We at Daisy were all too busy actually reading the thing, so we missed his scrum, which did not impress many of my correspondents, among them formerly elected Liberals.

I honestly don’t think how the Liberal leader spoke all that problematic. And – while the talking points he used weren’t in any way new – what he said is what concerns me the most.

To make my point, I refer you to one Michael Ignatieff. As everyone knows, the Conservatives spent around $5 million to broadcast ads that promoted the notion that Ignatieff was “just visiting.” The ads worked, and dramatically so.

The anti-Iggy ads worked, in part, because of the word that was missing from the “just visiting” tag line, not the words that were actually present. The word that was missing was “Canada.” How could Michael Ignatieff profess to care for Canada – and want to lead it, and have a vision for it – when he hadn’t lived in Canada for more than thirty years?

The Conservatives, in effect, cleverly took the one word that appeared in every single sentence that Michael Ignatieff uttered – “Canada” – and rewrote its meaning. They made viewers, and voters, feel that Michael Ignatieff was completely, utterly, fundamentally unfamiliar with the very thing that Ignatieff talked about the most: Canada.

So, too, Justin Trudeau’s much-repeated “middle class” nostrum. He says “middle class” all the time, just as he did in the clip above. When in a tough spot in a scrum about the economy, for instance, he will always reach for a reassuring line or two about the “middle class.”

The problem, of course, is that many Canadians suspect that Justin Trudeau isn’t middle class. He may know how to say those words, but he’s never lived those words. And that’s clearly why, inter alia, Stephen Harper has taken to reminding Trudeau that he is a trust fund kid, and why he resents the fact that Trudeau is a charter member of the lucky sperm club. To wit: Stephen Harper’s the Tim Horton’s-loving Hockey Dad Everyman, and Justin Trudeau has never had to worry about paying the rent or putting food on the table. Ever.

Rosedale and Westmount have taken over the Liberal Party of Canada – again. And you can reasonably expect Mr. Harper to remind us about that, over and over – and Mr. Mulcair will be doing likewise.

Think I’m wrong about my “Just Visiting the Middle Class” theory? I refer you to another case of a rich guy who talked a lot about the middle class – Mitt Romney. He certainly knew how to pronounce “middle class,” but he had never experienced “middle class.” And voters voted accordingly.

I strongly suspect the Conservatives are readying to do an Ignatieff on Trudeau – they getting ready to turn Trudeau’s own words/life against him, and at precisely the wrong time, too. Just as Michael Ignatieff could not change the fact that he had lived outside Canada for three decades, Justin Trudeau can’t change the fact that he grew up at 24 Sussex, the son of a millionaire. And the Conservatives are planning to draw attention to that fact, over and over.

Will that sort of attack work? Who knows. But it sure did against Messrs. Ignatieff and Romney, didn’t it?


Dear Eve Adams

Step away from the Twitter.  Going after someone’s spouse – and, along the way, offering up what I hear is unmitigated bullshit – is bad for you, bad for your leader, and bad for the party you profess to support.

Signed,

Everyone

Screen Shot 2015-04-20 at 4.42.21 PM


The Star is not happy with Mr. Trudeau

Quotage:

…and that is just stuff from a single month, April.

Not good.


Does Joe Oliver hold the fate of a government in his hands?

Not really. The last time a budget single-handedly sank a government was in the Fall of 1979, when John Crosbie offered up a fiscal stinker that ended Joe Clark’s flirtation with power. Other than that disaster, I can’t think of a federal budget – in and of itself – that killed off a government. 

Besides: Joe Oliver’s pretty smart. Not for him impolitical, imprudent musing about government fiscal policy. Oliver is a disciplined message machine, from what I’ve observed. He’s no ideologue, either. 

But does trouble loom on the horizon?

Mr. Oliver’s Nov. 12 fiscal update forecast economic growth of 2.6 per cent in 2015, but now he is only counting on 2-per-cent growth because of the drop in oil prices. Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said growth will only be 1.9 per cent and has warned first-quarter figures will be “atrocious.” 

 However, Mr. Poloz used the release of his April 15 Monetary Policy Report to highlight some positive signs on the horizon. The worst impacts of low oil may have peaked, he said, and the Canadian economy should soon start to see some of the positive economic impacts of lower energy costs.

Waiting to the Fall to have an election? I’ve always thought it was risky for the Consetvatives to do that. What if Poloz is wrong – and plenty of economists say he is – and things are getting worse, not better?

I run a small business. I have great people working for me, and great clients to work for. I watch the ebb and flow of business very, very carefully. And I don’t get the sense that anyone thinks that the country’s economy is in great shape. Most folks, in fact, are quite nervous. 

So, good luck, Joe Oliver. A government’s entire fate may not be in your hands. But a lot of it is.  


Which leader best represents your interests?

Ekos’ Frank Graves, long derided (unfairly) as a pro-Liberal pollster, has an answer to the question above – and it should concern Justin Trudeau’s brain trust:

Leaders

Says Frank:

“Harper retains an edge in terms of who Canadians see as best reflecting their values, but this advantage has diminished in recent weeks. This is an important number to watch, because ‘values’ are strongly connected to emotional engagement and party choice. Harper is seen by the largest number of Canadians as the leader best able to represent their interests; ‘progressive’ voters have been bouncing between the Liberals and the NDP on this question.”

What’s evident (to me at least) – is that it isn’t just the security/terrorism issue that works to Stephen Harper’s advantage. So does the surge in popularity for Thomas Mulcair and his New Democrats. For Trudeau, both represent a worrying trend.

Can he turn it around? If so, how?